Does anybody have access to, or know somewhere/someone who might, any photographs showing the locking rooms of any signal boxes on the GCR's London Extension ?

We are most especially interested in any showing the standard RSCo lever frames installed by that contractor in the original boxes on that line in 1897/98, but that is not to say that later frames and or structures would not be of interest to us.

Photographs of the operating floors of these boxes are like hen's teeth. Photographs of the locking rooms are non-existent.

As a further ask, if anyone likewise has any drawings which show any details / dimensions / general arrangements for the laying out of the main components on an RSCo frame (or even of a derivative such as the L&Y's standard frame) of the period of, say, 1885 to 1910, then we would also be delighted for a sight of them.

We are reverse engineering a full set of drawings for one of the long extinct all-timber Type 4 boxes, and whilst we have nearly completed those for the structure (extrapolated from elements of the brick Type 4 at Loughborough North, photographs, invoices and even archaeological digs) and the lever frame (taken from the dismantled components of 90% of the sole (known) surviving original LE frame); there are several possible ways of integrating the frame into the structure of the box. It would be nice to be able to say that we had settled on the "proper" way.

When Neasden South Junction closed in 1990 the Operating Floor and frame were, indeed, recovered by the preserved GCR, and are now reerected (although not yet in use) at the NTHC site in Ruddington.

In the context of my initial query, however, Neasden South Junction had a GCR standard frame, not an RSCo one. Although there are some similarities, the GCR frame being an evolution of the RSCo type, there are more differences.

Flipper_T_Rox wrote:In the context of my initial query, however, Neasden South Junction had a GCR standard frame, not an RSCo one. Although there are some similarities, the GCR frame being an evolution of the RSCo type, there are more differences.

Absolutely. One major difference was the sag in the middle!

Seriously, though, is it your view that the London Extension frames differed in any way from the standard Railway Signal Company product?

Not at all John, the frames provided by the RSCo for the GCR’s London Extension in 1898/99 were absolutely taken from their standard product range.

However, the GCR later (~1905) adopted their own standard frame, the well-known “jug handle” frame. This had a strong family resemblance to the RSCo frames, of which it was clearly an evolution, but also a number of differences, chiefly the following: the frame was “shorter”, with the pivots appreciably closer to the operating floor, and the levers had a noticeable bend in them below the quadrants, as well as the obvious front-mounted catch handles; The locking tray support brackets were different; The standards and pivot stools sat *inside* a lip on the main support beam, rather than fitting over it.

It was this later, GCR, pattern of frame which were installed in Neasden North Junction and South Junction boxes (both Type 5 structures), and which were recovered by us in 1990 and installed at Ruddington.

The original boxes provided at Neasden as part of the London Extension signalling, “Neasden GC Junction”, “Neasden No. 1 North” and “Neasden No. 2 South”, were all Type 4 boxes, each with standard RSCo frames of 30 levers. They were replaced very early on with the Type 5 boxes / GCR frames in connection with the GC/GW Joint Line works.

Flipper_T_Rox wrote: The standards and pivot stools sat *inside* a lip on the main support beam, rather than fitting over it.

I have just looked at a GA for a GCR frame and the associated components that I have on file, and the standards appear to stand on the main support beam, and the pivot stools definately fits over the support beam not inside. So may be there are variants of the GCR frame. I have not currently the RSCo drawings to hand so I cannot compare details.

The GA does show the installation of a GCR frame in a timber box, but only elevation, not plan.

Flipper_T_Rox wrote:Not at all John, the frames provided by the RSCo for the GCR’s London Extension in 1898/99 were absolutely taken from their standard product range.

So would not any locking-room view of a standard RSCo frame serve your needs? I expect I have some, but they may take a bit of finding. Here are two I have already catalogued that may be the right type:https://433shop.co.uk/index.php?route=p ... ing%20room)&category_id=0

(I am not trying to sell them to you but you can let me know if you need to see them larger).

Adrian Crafer wrote:I have just looked at a GA for a GCR frame and the associated components that I have on file, and the standards appear to stand on the main support beam, and the pivot stools definately fits over the support beam not inside. So may be there are variants of the GCR frame. I have not currently the RSCo drawings to hand so I cannot compare details.

Hi Adrian,

Yes, GCR frame has the components fitting over the beams, RSCo frame has them fitting inside.

Flipper_T_Rox wrote:So would not any locking-room view of a standard RSCo frame serve your needs? I expect I have some, but they may take a bit of finding.

Hi John,

No, sadly not, but some *may* do. We are actually trying to ascertain the exact method in which the main support beam was fiited in an RSCo-built GCR Type 4 timber box. We know how they were installed in GCR-built timber Type 4’s, and in RSCo-built Type 4 brick boxes, and in RSCo built GCR Type 3 timber boxes. And how they were done in several other company’s boxes of various types. All of these differ in various (and,in some cases, significant) ways from our target box however.

We have reverse engineered a probable answer since I asked this question, based on a few surviving (but badly damaged) pieces of structural framing, and some surviving drawings of nearby parts of the structures, but as the ultimate aim of this work is to produce an historically-accurate set of detailed drawings we would rather avoid guesses and assumptions (however well informed) if at all possible.

Any photographs of closely-related examples would be very eagerly studied, of course, thank you.

We are especially interested in the ‘T’ section main beam (is it modular C.I., or one-piece W.I. ?); in the C.I. support brackets in which either end of the beam sit (is it coach screwed to the supporting upright timber, or through-bolted); in that supporting timber itself (does it sit above, directly supported by, the lower ring-beam/floor beam ? Or is it adjacent to one or the other of those beams, and through-bolted/screwed ?; and in the intermediate supports for the main beam (are they timber or W.I. ? How many are there for a given size of frame, and are they evenly spaced, or directly over the floor beams ? Method of fore/aft bracing, if any, between the beam and the structure of the box ?)

And probably a dozen more questions about how that particular pattern of frame fitted into that particular pattern of box, where we are reasonably happy that we know the answer, but cannot be certain . . .

Flipper_T_Rox wrote:No, sadly not, but some *may* do. We are actually trying to ascertain the exact method in which the main support beam was fiited in an RSCo-built GCR Type 4 timber box. We know how they were installed in GCR-built timber Type 4’s, and in RSCo-built Type 4 brick boxes, and in RSCo built GCR Type 3 timber boxes. And how they were done in several other company’s boxes of various types. All of these differ in various (and,in some cases, significant) ways from our target box however.